Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Plan Review Detail

Plan Number: S07-037
Parcel: Unknown

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S07-037
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/12/2007 FRODRIG2 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
03/13/2007 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
03/27/2007 RBABBIT1 LANDFILL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Approv-Cond City of Tucson, Environmental Services (COT, ES) has reviewed and conditionally approved Case Number S07-037. A portion of the Liberty at Stone Bluff plat is subject to the City of Tucson Landfill Ordinance, Ordinance No. 10037. Any development located between 100 and 500 feet from the Harrison landfill is subject to Sec. 29-24 of the Landfill Ordinance.

The following modifications must be done to the drawing set

· Identify the landfill and show the boundaries on the drawing sets where applicable.
· Show the lines of 100 and 500 foot distances from the landfill where applicable on the drawing sets.
· Add a note stating "All utilities and structures located within 500 feet of the Harrison Landfill shall comply with the requirements of the City of Tucson's Landfill Ordinance No. 10037."

If you have any questions please contact Robert Babbitt at (520) 791-5569.
03/29/2007 KAROL ARAGONEZ ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Karol Aragonez
Planner

PROJECT: S07-037
Liberty at Stone Bluff
Tentative Plat

TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 28, 2007

DUE DATE: April 9, 2007

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

1. Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this tentative plat is March 11, 2008.

2. Please center the subject property within the project location map and label the Wingate Wash.
DS 2-03.2.1.D.1 & 2

3. Case number S07-037 has been assigned to this tentative plat. Please place this number in the right corner of all sheets of the tentative plat, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets.
DS 2-03.2.2.B.1

4. Provide a separate response letter detailing compliance with rezoning conditions.

5. Please add Subdivision case number C12-90-4 in the lower right corner of all sheets of the tentative plat, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets. Per this final plat, prior to development of lot 6 and 7 a methane study will be conducted by a qualified expert. If methane is found in significant concentrations to warrant a health hazard, as defined by the Arizona Department of Health Services, the following requirements must be met:

a) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building and approved methane gas control and mitigation system shall have been installed per plans certified by a registered professional engineer appointed by and/or acceptable to the Arizona Department of Health Services, the Pima County Health Department, and the City of Tucson.

b) Prior to issuance of a building permit, a master methane control plan for the subdivision shall be reviewed and approved by the Arizona Department of Health Services, the Pima County Health Department, and the City of Tucson.

c) At the time either lot 6 or lot 7 is developed, the builder/long term lessee or successors of lot 6 and/or lot 7 jointly or independently shall be responsible for monitoring and installing appropriate methane mitigation measures as required by the Arizona Department of Health Services and the Pima County Health Department, if the source of methane is located on the buyer's/long term lessee's or successor's property.

d) At the time either lot 6 or lot 7 is developed, the builder/long term lessee or successors of lot 6 and/or lot 7 jointly or independently shall provide methane easements for the installation of appropriate measures to mitigate methane migration from the solid waste disposal site to the east of the rezoning site, as determined necessary by the Arizona Department of Health Services, the Pima County Health Department, and the City of Tucson Department of Environmental Services.
General Notes from C12-90-4

6. Either a copy of an approved lot split or reconfiguration of lots 6 and 7 by the City of Tucson must be provided or the remainder of lot 6 must be included in the proposed subdivision as a separate block.

7. Please define what is meant by the term "Mixed Dwelling". This term used in general note is not defined in the LUC.

8. Please revise general note 36 by removing the "subject to LUC Sec. 3.5.7.1.E".
LUC 2.3.5.2.A.3 & LUC 2.3.6.2.A.3

9. Please draw all existing easements on the plan along with recordation information, location, width, and purpose. If an easement is no longer in use and scheduled to be vacated or has been abandoned, so indicate. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. Also if easements are purposed please draw, dimension and label as to their purpose and whether they will be public or private. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments.
DS 2-03.2.3.C & DS 2-03.2.4.J

10. Per the MS&R cross section for a proposed one hundred and twenty (120) foot wide arterial there should be a nine (9) foot wide pedestrian/utility area, a seventeen (17) foot wide travel lane which includes a bike lane, two (2) twelve (12) foot wide travel lanes and a twenty (20) foot wide median. The proposed MS&R right-of-way is to be shown on the plan view.
11. The boundary line between common areas A, B, C and D are not clearly identifiable. Please increase line weight of these boundary lines so they are more easily distinguished.
DS 2-03.2.4.C

12. Please clearly show and label the split zoning on the property (R-2 and R-3). Label all zoning classifications surrounding the project site. SR to the east, R-2 and C-1 to the west across Wingate Boulevard, and SR to the south.
DS 2-03.2.4.D

13. In detail 5/8 and 9/8 please include truncated domes in description of detectable warning device.

14. Please provide the site coverage calculations for the proposed subdivision. This may be done either by using the most restrictive of the calculations under R-2 RCP-6 (62% maximum site coverage) or by providing separate calculation for those areas within the R-2 RCP-6 (62% maximum site coverage) and R-3 RCP-7 (70% maximum site coverage).
DS 2-10.3.1.C

15. Please add the minimum allowed site area and proposed site area as required by RCP-6 Alternate "A" and RCP-7. The most restrictive of the two development designators can be used for the entire project site.
LUC 3.2.3.1.F

16. Please remove general note 34. This subdivision does not have lots that front onto the MS&R designated streets.

17. Common Area "D" is designated as drainage and recreation. If to be used as a dual purpose basin an accessible path to the recreation portion of the basin must be provided that meets minimum ADA requirements for both materials and slope. This should be shown on both the tentative plat and landscape plan.

18. General note 10 calls out a rear yard setback of ten (10) feet or three-fourths (3/4) the height from the building to the property line. All lots are bounded by common area, which would require that the setbacks used around the perimeter of the subdivision to be three (3) feet, which would be the greater of the setback requirements. Please revise the general note and lot typicals to reflect this.

19. General note 38 is to include the number of lots (31) and the specific lot number that barrier free accessibility will be provided to.
DS 2-10.3.1.D

20. The project site is within the South Pantano Area Plan. Please submit documentation, which can include photos, and dimensioned colored elevations that demonstrate compliance to the plan as required by LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.1.

21. This subdivision is proposing lots that are less than 4,000 square feet in size and will require the following:
a) Floor plans or drawings of the footprint of each unit, showing exterior dimensions. Make sure that second floors are shown, front entrances, and motor vehicle parking spaces. These can be preliminary and not complete construction drawings.
b) Building elevations of all proposed units with height dimensions
c) A list of which model fits on which lot. The list should indicate whether optional covered patios, porches, etc., will still allow the unit to fit on the lot in compliance with requirements.
DS 2-10.3.2.D

22. Please provide three (3) copies of CC&Rs for verification as to responsibility for the maintenance and ownership of common area.
DS 2-10.3.2.E

23. The RCP shall be designed so that any potentially adverse impacts from yards, balconies, courts, landscaping, lighting, or noise producing activities are mitigated within the RCP.
LUC 3.6.1.4.A.8

24. All areas of the RCP, except those areas that fit under the definition of site coverage or are designed for the exclusive use of individual residents, shall be landscaped with water-conserving, drought tolerant vegetation (DS 2-16.0). Mini oasis concepts are acceptable, provided the oasis area landscape requirements of Sec. 3.7.0, Landscaping and Screening Requirements are satisfied.
LUC 3.6.1.4.A.4

25. Mechanical Equipment Detail could not be found on landscape plan as noted in general note 41. Please provide on the tentative plat a detail as to how screening of the mechanical equipment is done. If ground mounted and screened by property walls please provide note stating that. If roof mounted provide a detail showing how screening will be architecturally integrated with the overall design of the RCP.
LUC 3.6.1.4.A.9

26. Bus turnout lanes and bus waiting shelters must be provided if requested by the City of Tucson.
LUC 3.6.1.4.A.7

27. Please add note stating "There shall be no further division of land or resubdivision without the developer or successor in interest furnishing written notice to all property owners of record within the boundaries of the RCP. In no event shall further division of land occur without the written approval of the Mayor and Council.".
LUC 3.6.1.4.A.10

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550, ext. 1197.

KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S07-037tp.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents.
04/05/2007 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#178711 March 29, 2007


Stantec Consulting, Inc.
Attn: Ryan R. Stucki, PE
201 N. Bonita Ave. Ste 101
Tucson, AZ 85745

Dear Ryan Stucki:

SUBJECT: LIBERTY @ STONE BLUFF
Lots 1-125
S07-037

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the preliminary plat submitted for review March 14, 2007.

The preliminary point where TEP will serve this project is from poles 151, 152, 155 and 156 all along Wingate Blvd. Per pg. 8 of 8 of the Tentative Plat, poles 156, 194, 196 are in conflict. This would also include the span guy pole (195) associated with pole #194 and riser (HCW-56) attached to pole #196.
Enclosed is a copy of TEP’s facility map showing the approximate location and unit numbers of the existing facilities. Also enclosed is a copy of the tentative plat showing where TEP will be placing the aboveground equipment for this subdivision. This is not a preliminary design. TEP has provided this drawing to show where the proposed locations are for transformers and pedestals. Any relocation costs are billable to the Developer.

TEP will provide a preliminary electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within fifteen (15) working days upon receipt of the plat. Additional plans necessary for preparation of the design are: building plans including water, electrical, landscape, sidewalk and paving plans. Also, submit the AutoCAD version of the plat on a CD or email to HNoriega@tep.com. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (520) 918-8709. Any technical questions should be directed to the Designer, Frank Grijalva at 918-8361.



Sincerely,



Henrietta Noriega
Office Specialist
Design/Build
hn
Enclosures
cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson (email)
G. Mohl, Owner (letter only)
04/09/2007 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied April 9, 2007
ACTIVITY NUMBER: S07-037
PROJECT NAME: Liberty at Stone Bluff
PROJECT ADDRESS: Wingate Blvd/Irvington Rd
PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer

Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat; therefore a revised Tentative Plat is required for re-submittal.

The following items must be revised or added to the plat.

1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.

2. Sheet 3/8: Wingate Blvd is a collector road therefore 6' sidewalks are required.

3. A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved tentative plat is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact the PIA Coordinator for additional PIA information at 791-5550 ext. 1107.

4. Be advised that the Tucson City Code Chapter 25 Section 38 requires a minimum driveway separation of 12'. Offsets can be verified on the PIA.


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
04/10/2007 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Approved Office of the Pima County Assessor


115 N. Church Ave.


Tucson, Arizona 85701



BILL STAPLES

ASSESSOR










TO: CDRC Office

Subdivision Review

City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559)



FROM: Gary Ault, Mapping Supervisor

Pima County Assessor's Office

Mapping Department



DATE: Monday, April 09, 2007





RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat

S07-037 LIBERTY AT STONE BLUFF T141534





* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



X Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements.

_______ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements.





COMMENTS: PLEASE MAKE THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS BY FINAL PLAT STAGE:

1. ADD BEARINGS FOR ALL DIMENSIONS.

2. ADD COMPLETE CURVE DATA.

3. ADD RECORDING INFO FOR EXISTING STREETS.





THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUBMITTAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL
ROSANNA WERNER AT 740-4390



NOTE: THE ASSESSOR'S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS
TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN
THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING
THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK
YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED.







ROSANNA WERNER
04/10/2007 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

S07-037 Liberty at Stone Bluff 04/09/07

(XXXX) Tentative Plat
() Development Plan
(XXXX) Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other

CROSS REFERENCE: C9-86-40

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: South Pantano

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE:

COMMENTS DUE BY: 04/09/07

SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:

() No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment
() Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions
() RCP Proposal Complies with Plan Policies
() See Additional Comments Attached
() No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:
(XXXX) Resubmittal Required:
(XXXX) Tentative Plat
() Development Plan
() Landscape Plan
(XXXX) Other – Color Elevations, Photos

REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 4/7/07
Because this project is being proposed as a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), it must comply with section 3.6.1 of the Land Use Code, specifically section 3.6.1.4 of the general development criteria. The RCP requires compliance with policies of the General Plan, the South Pantano Area Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual. The Plans require community amenities, such as but not limited to; streetscapes with pedestrian oasis, common area(s) of appropriate land size(s) to sustain residential amenities for all.


The Design Guidelines Manual states that side and rear building facades should be built with attention to architectural character and detail comparable to the front façade, particularly if rear and side facades are visible from streets or adjacent properties. Enhancement can include design treatments such a pop outs, color variation, etc. Massing of proposed structures to existing structures will also be a part of this review. The tentative plat should identify the height of existing structures that surround the project site. Please submit plans showing how the RCP will comply with these design requirements. Photos, dimensioned elevations, or a combination of both must be submitted

The General Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual encourages the creation of cooling microclimates along pedestrian paths that are internal to the subdivision. In order to provide such a microclimate it is required to provide a minimum of one fifteen (15) gallon tree, no more than ten (10) feet from the back of the sidewalk, on every other lot frontage. This should be shown on the landscape plan along with a note indicating such.

Per DS 2-10.3.2.D, the lots within this project that are less than 4,000 square feet must submit the following:

Floor plans or drawings of the footprint of each unit, showing exterior dimensions. Be certain that locations of second floors (if applicable), front entrances, and motor vehicle parking spaces are noted. These can be preliminary plans. To aide in the review it is helpful to provide building footprints drawn at the same scale as the tentative plat to check which models fit on which lots.
Building elevations of all proposed units with height dimensions.
A list of what model homes fit which lots. Unless a lot is planned for another use, each lot will be designed so that at least one of the model units fits on the lot in compliance with Code requirements.

Lots that incorporate walls that abut amenities such as designated open space areas, common areas, and trail systems, should meet the following criteria: the masonry portion of the wall does not exceed four (4) feet, eight (8) inches in height, except for pillars, with one (1) foot six (6) inch wrought iron or other similar open fencing materials on top. This is to provide security to those using the facility placing the “eyes of the community” on these areas. Please submit a detail on the tentative plat to indicate compliance with this requirement.

The Plans call for innovative site design to include design elements of usable open space and active/passive recreational space and that those pedestrian facilities be accessible to the handicapped. [An active/passive adult recreational facility, which includes a tot lot with appropriate tot equipment and ground material]. The adult recreational amenities to include, but not limited to: ramada(s), table(s), outdoor grill, shaded sitting area(s). Ideally the recreation area should equal one (1) lot in size, but given this project proposes a detention basin, this basin can also serve a dual purpose with the placement of required amenities within and surrounding the basin. The slopes surrounding the basin must be adjusted to provide handicap accessibility to the amenities by way of an all-weather ADA compliant path that connects to the proposed sidewalks within the subdivision. To increase appearance, shade, and longevity diversity, please provide an appropriate amount of longer living and diverse shade producing trees, including evergreens that are in the Low water Use Drought Tolerant List. Also please do not locate any vegetation that has thorns at maturation in the recreation areas. Please indicate on either the tentative plat or landscape plan the location of these amenities.

Please add the identifying case number, S07-037, to all sheets of the Tentative Plat and Landscape Plans.
04/11/2007 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. Revise the landscape plans to comply. DS 2-05.2.1.A

2) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers, such as rezoning, to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B

3) Basin slopes are required to have slopes no steeper than 4:1 where depths are three feet or greater. Slopes for basins less than three feet are to be no steeper than 3:1 for unprotected slopes and 2: 1 for protected. DS 10-01.4

4) Revise the plans to provide landscaping for basin 'C'. DS 10-01.IV. LUC 3.7.4.3

5) Any required storm water detention/retention basins shall be landscaped to enhance the natural configuration of the basin. Design criteria are set forth in Development Standard 10-01.0. LUC 3.7.4.3.A

6) If recreational amenities or human activity zones are to be placed within the proposed detention basin, access slopes of 8:1 or flatter must be coordinated with these zones and there shall be a maximum of 100 feet to the base of an access slope or to a 4:1 basin side slope.

7) Grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area. Identify water harvesting areas on the landscape plans. LUC 3.7.4.3.B

8) Show required sight visibility triangles on the landscape plan. Plant materials located within SVT's should consist of ground cover or low-growing vegetation of a species that will not grow higher than (30) inches. However, trees may be planted within SVT's provided that: A) The trunk caliper, at maturity, will not exceed twelve (12) inches in diameter; B) The lowest branch of any tree is at least six (6) feet above the grade of the street, and C) Trees are not planted in a line that could result in a solid wall effect when viewed from an angle. LUC 3.7.2.8 & DS 2-06

9) Show trees required for the interior streets on the landscape plans. City of Tucson General Plan

10) Identify the lines shown crossing Street G on Irrigation Plan sheet 14. Private installations may not be located in the public right of way.

11) Show the irrigation main line symbol in the irrigation plan legend (sheets L3-01-L3-05).

12) Revise the sheet index on L0-01 and the numbering on the plan sheets to match.

13) Correct duplicate numbering on the landscape plans, see sheets L3-05.

14) Include the Native Plant Preservation Plans in the sheet index on L0-01., or revise the title sheet.

15) The clarification note provided on the sheets N-1 and N-2 regarding "No Disturbance Past Limit of Inventory" is appreciated, however the more restrictive requirement for no disturbance past the limits of grading should be emphasized.

RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED.
04/11/2007 KAY MARKS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Denied 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207

KAY MARKS
ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
PH: 740-6480
FAX #: 740-6370


TO: CITY PLANNING
FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
SUBJECT: S07-037 LIBERTY AT STONE BLUFF/TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: 4/10/07



The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval:

Label approved interior street names on Final Plat.

Brandywine Drive east of Wingate Boulevard will need to have a new street name. The suffix will need to be Loop.


es
04/11/2007 ANDY VERA ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved * Street frontage access okay for APC curbside refuse/recycle service.
04/12/2007 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Passed
04/12/2007 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Passed
04/12/2007 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Denied S07-037 Liberty at Stone bluff: Tentative Plat Review - Per Sht. 6, 7, and 8: Request validation of dedication of Wingate Boulevard R/W. Tentative plat cites R/W was dedicated by M & P 43/66, however, when this plat was approved, the land was still under trust by the State of Arizona and conveyance could not occur (See Bk.43 Pg.66). Request Dkt./Pg. 11145/1708, 10/4/99, be reviewed and considered as a reference for the partial conveyance of Wingate R/W to the City. Also, parcel has not been conveyed from St. of Arizona at this time. Request confirmation that conveyance from the St. occurs prior approval of Final Plat.
04/18/2007 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved no comment from ADOT
04/19/2007 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approv-Cond DATE: April 18, 2007

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

FROM: Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov

CC: Patricia Gehlen


SUBJECT: S07-037 Liberty at Stone Bluff: Tentative Plat Review(3-12-07)

Please contact Glenn Hicks in Parks and Recreation regarding trail connections to the future Pantano River Park.
04/20/2007 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 04/20/2007,

TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E.
CDRC Engineering

SUBJECT: Liberty at Stone Bluff
S07-037, T14S, R15E, SECTION 34

RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on March 12, 2007

The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the drainage report and on the Tentative Plat where the revisions were made:

Drainage Report:

1. Verify compliance with the approved Master Drainage Report and Master Grading Plan for the Wingate Master Plan.
2. Requirement #15 of the City of Tucson Department of Transportation Memo dated September 19, 1986, requires the Owner/Developer to install all street improvements in Irvington Road. These improvements appear to include a box culvert at Irvington Road/Wingate Wash crossing. Provide all design calculations.
3. Ensure that the subject development has all weather access.
4. The fifth line of the "Onsite Drainage Improvements" paragraph states that there is an existing culvert located at Street "G". It is not clear if this is the culvert at the northern entrance. Clarify.
5. The drainage report does not address detention basin and drainage structure maintenance requirements and responsibility. Additionally, provide the proposed drainage structure maintenance checklist that addresses all drainage structures including the retention/detention basins. Revise the report accordingly. We also recommend including a copy of the check list in the CC & R's to allow the Home Owners Association access to the list and facilitate their maintenance responsibility.
6. The project is required to provide 2-year threshold retention. Verify compliance with this requirement or discuss other acceptable alternatives to runoff retention.
7. Address in the report the waterharvesting requirements for this project.
8. The hydrologic data sheets for concentration points 5, 6 and 7 are not included. Revise.
9. It appears that pipe P-1 outlet velocity warrants for an erosion control structure. Address this issue and revise as necessary.
10. Provide the design calculations for all required splash pads/erosion control structures.
11. Buildings set backs need to be determined from the proposed slopes and the proposed detention basin(s) based on the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report. Submit a Geotechnical Report that addresses the required setbacks.
12. It is not clear from where the erosion setback line is set. Clarify.
13. Show the proposed streets widths on Figure 4.
14. Show on Figure 4 the drainage structure dimensions (i.e. the proposed channel lengths, the basin dimensions, etc.) the channel and maintenance ramp slopes, drainage structure elevations (i.e. flow line and pipe invert elevations, etc.).
15. Show on Figure 4 all proposed drainage solutions/structures with all required details (i.e. type, materials, location, size and dimensions, slopes, grades, high and low points, water ponding and slope setback lines, retention/detention basins inlet details, waterharvesting basins, lot drainage and surface flow arrows, finished floor elevations, cross section locations and details, etc.) that would clarify how the proposed drainage scheme will work. The drainage information shown on the tentative plat and grading plan will be based on the information provided in the drainage report text and drainage exhibits.
16. The existing culvert that's being proposed to drain to CP5 shall be addressed in the drainage report. The proposed alteration shall be analyzed and the new pipe design shall include any applicable losses. The proposed pipes shall require manholes or cleanouts, especially at the bend, to facilitate any required maintenance. This Office recommends replacing the existing pipes completely instead of altering them. The new pipes can be installed at the appropriate angle to discharge directly into Basin C.
17. It appears that the proposed basins require security barriers. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
18. The existing drainage conveyance system along the east side of Wingate Boulevard shall be graded to provide adequate conveyance and to be setback 2 feet from the property line (inside the property).
19. The report did not provide the required erosion control design calculations for this project.
20. Revise the hand placed riprap details on Figure 4 to include filter fabric.
21. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona", the proposed detention/retention basins require maintenance access ramps that shall be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow access to vehicles except maintenance vehicles. Verify that the maintenance ramps will not reduce the required size of the basins.
22. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual the proposed basins floors shall be sloped to provide positive drainage. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Additionally, clarify how the basin floor elevations are called out on Figure 4, but a 0.5% basin bottom slope is also shown, which implies that the bottoms elevations vary. Provide the basin bottom elevations that are consistent with the bottom slopes.
23. It is not clear, in the report, if the subject project requires/provides runoff retention. If runoff retention is proposed for this development, verify that the proposed retention basins have an acceptable percolation rate or provide the basins with bleed pipes to ensure that water will not stand for prolonged periods of time.
24. In accordance with Chapter 4 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the detention/retention basins shall be designed to be natural looking, aesthetically pleasing and have multi-use. Verify compliance with these recommendations.
25. The erosion setback line does not appear to have been delineated from the top of bank. Revise as necessary.
26. Address in the report drainage structures and detention/retention basins maintenance requirement and responsibility. Provide the drainage structure maintenance checklist. This Office recommends including the maintenance checklist in the CC & R's to allow the owners' association access to it and to facilitate their maintenance responsibility.
27. Wingate Wash is a "proposed WASH watercourse". This development is required to comply with the WASH Ordinance requirements if any encroachment into the study area is proposed (i.e. delineate the study area, identify the resources in the study area, prepare and submit an Environmental Resource Report, etc. Public notification is not required). Verify compliance with this requirement and show on the drainage exhibits the Wash study and resource area. Address this issue in the Drainage Report. Please be advised that it appears that delineating the study/resource area from the existing top of bank might affect lots 9 through 42

Tentative Plat:

1. Provide the correct S (yr)-______ subdivision case number and the rezoning case # in accordance with Development Standard (D.S.) 2-03.2.2.B.1.
2. Based on the information provided by Map Guide, the parcel southern limit does not appear to coincide with the Section Line as shown on the Tentative Plat. Additionally, this information might affect the proposed dedication. Investigate this issue and revise the Tentative Plat as necessary.
3. Verify compliance with the approved Master Drainage Report and Master Grading Plan for the Wingate Master Plan.
4. Requirement #15 of the City of Tucson Department of Transportation Memo dated September 19, 1986, requires the Owner/Developer to install all street improvements in Irvington Road. These improvements appear to include a box culvert at Irvington Road/Wingate Wash crossing, street widening, and curb and sidewalk. Revise the plat accordingly including Detail 1/5.
5. According to the Major and Street Plan and Map, all MS & R streets require 6' sidewalks. Revise cross-section Detail 2/3 and 3/3 to reflect this information.
6. Revise Details 2/3 and 3/3 to show the proposed drainage swale.
7. Detail 3/3 and the plan shall be revised to reflect the required widening for a right-turn lane.
8. The delineated "1000' landfill setback" implies that there should not be any development within the setback area. Additionally, show the 500' landfill setback. Address this issue and revise the Plat as necessary.
9. Verify that there are no existing easements within the proposed development (D.S. 2-03.2.3.C.).
10. Provide additional contour line elevations in order to give reference to existing ground elevations and assist in determining compliance with the differential grading requirements (D.S. 2-03.2.3.F.).
11. It is not clear if Basin "C" will be installed within a common area. Revise.
12. Slope treatment and stabilization shall be based on the Geotechnical Report recommendation. Additionally, slope and detention basin setbacks shall also be determined by the geotechnical engineer. Provide a copy of the Geotechnical Report with the required recommendations.
13. Drainage structures and public right of way, as shown on the plan, can not be within the erosion setback line. Revise the plan accordingly.
14. Clarify the intermittent line that runs parallel to Wingate Road through lots 43-125 and lot 1.
15. It appears that the detention basins require security barriers. Revise the plan accordingly.
16. Provide proposed ground elevations at different points on each lot for reference to future grading and site drainage.
17. Ensure that lots 43-125 and lot 1 meet the requirements of differential grading. Revise the proposed grades or verify compliance with the requirements of D.S. 11-01.8.0. (Fills).
18. Provide proposed ground elevations at different point on each lot for reference to future grading and site drainage (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.4.).
19. Provide the proposed drainage structures and retention/detention basin, erosion control and channel construction details (dimensions, slopes, material, grades, maintenance access ramps, basin low flow channel, inlets and outlets, rip rap, filter fabric etc.). Additionally, provide on Detail 5/4, the proposed channel hydraulic information (i.e. depth, velocity, free board, etc.) (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.2 & 3).
20. Show all applicable setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain retention/detention basins, etc. as required by (D.S. 2-03.2.4.M.).
21. Revise the Tentative Plat in accordance with the drainage report revisions.

Landscape Plan:

1. Demonstrate that the proposed landscaping will not conflict with the retention/detention basin maintenance access ramp and inlet and outlet structures.
2. Demonstrate compliance with water harvesting requirements.
3. It appears that the sight visibility triangle areas are proposed to be landscaped heavily. For safety reasons, ensure, on the Landscape Plan, that either plants are not proposed within the existing and future sight visibility triangles, or the plants must comply with the requirements of Development Standard 3-01.5.1.A.1. at all times. Show on the Landscape Plans existing and future sight visibility triangles and demonstrate compliance with "no obstruction" requirement.
04/20/2007 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

April 20, 2007

Ryan R. Stucki, P.E.
Stantec Consulting, Inc.
201 North Bonita Avenue, Suite 101
Tucson, Arizona 85745

Subject: S07-037 Liberty at Stone Bluff Tentative Plat

Dear Ryan:

Your submittal of March 12, 2007 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed:

ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED

11 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Landfill, Zoning, Traffic, DUPD, Addressing, Landscape, Real Estate, Parks and Recreation, Wastewater, Engineering, DSD)

6 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, DUPD, Landscape, Parks and Recreation, Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD)

3 Copies Color Elevations and photos (Zoning, DUPD, DSD)

2 Copies City of Tucson approved lot split documents (Zoning, DSD)

3 Copies Floor Plans (Zoning, DUPD, DSD)

2 Copies Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD)


Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 extension 1179.

Sincerely,


Patricia Gehlen
CDRC Manager
All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/

Via fax: 750-7470
Tp-resubmittal
04/20/2007 FRODRIG2 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied April 19, 2007

To: Ryan Stucki, P.E.
Stantec Consulting Inc.

Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager
City of Tucson Development Services Department

____________________________________
From: Tom Porter, Sr. Civil Eng. Assistant (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County
Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality


Subject: Liberty At Stome Bluff Lots 1 through 125
Tentative Plat – 1rd Submittal
S07-037

The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use.

Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at:

http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf.

The tentative plat for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office.

All Sheets: Add the case number, S07-037, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision.

Sheets 1, 6, 7 & 8: Revise the call out for EXISTING 8” PVC SEWER (PER G-2006-170)
to read as follows: PROPOSED 8” PUBLIC PVC SEWER(PER G-2006-170)

Sheet 2: In the legend add the word PUBLIC to both the description for the EXISTING SANITARY SEWER W/MANHOLE and the NEW SEWER PIPE W/MANHOLE


Sheet 2: The invert elevation shown on the plan for ExMH#4 does not match the invert elevation shown on plan G-2006-170 for MH#4.

Sheet 2: The proposed connection of the 8”proposed public sewer to the proposed 8” public pvc sewer(per G-2006-170) does not appear to function as a gravity flow system. The invert of MH#1 is lower then the invert for ExMH#4.

Sheet 8: Show the directional flow arrows for the proposed 8” public sewer.

This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents.

Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the tentative plat. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet.

The next submittal of this project will be the 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $150 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter.

If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly.


If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
CC: Project file